THERE is an old Guyanese saying that states: “You can take the pig out of the mud, but not the mud out of the pig”. The current state of Guyana’s political economy is troubling and definitely warrants close examination by citizens and also by those in authority.It would be fair to say that much of the current obsession of Opposition pandemonium changed gear when the budget cuts were argued. I said then, like I will repeat now, no economist in their righted sense would recommend a budget cut of 11% (or there about) during a time of sluggish global economic growth. Despite the consequences of such a policy, it was fiercely argued by the opposition. The same event was a prologue for the unrest that took place in Agricola when opposition parliamentarians made nothing more than a mockery of themselves, claiming to be champions of the law and the peoples’ interest while encouraging a public attack on ordinary citizens and justifying the destruction of properties and brutality of the innocent.
It did not stop there; it has now arrived at Parliament. The Speaker’s  recent position on the ‘Clement Rohee issue’ is an indictment to the opposition understanding of protocol, procedures and parliamentary precedence.
This is appalling when one considers the fact that almost the entire Opposition is made up of ex-military personnel and lawyers. Like I always suggest, what does our own history tell us of these kinds of acts or similar ones by the opposition.
Starting with the budget issue, as Legal Affairs Minister Mohabir Anil Nandlall rightfully pointed out sometime ago, budget speeches under the PNC administration was nothing more than an annual death announcement.
Due to lawless spending and wasteful allocation under the said regime, it was always forced to look at fiscal cuts and save the public some pain. This was Bretton Woods governing demand management approach which Guyana was forced to adopt.
At that time this was the best therapy since the problem of economic sluggishness and prolong contraction that characterizes the PNC era was driven by irresponsible government, personalisation of state apparatus and income and the lack of transparency in the use of public finance.
I challenge anyone to look at the breakdown of capital expenditure under the PNC rule. There are six broad categories in which capital expenditure is broken down in our national accounts. These are, health, education, housing and water, roads, bridges, D&I and Agriculture development and finally the famous “others”. During the entire PNC rule, especially during the Forbes Brunham era, the category that received the biggest allocation was not other than the famous ‘Others’.

It was no surprise why the IMF declared Guyana ineligible in 1982 for international funding as the then government could not provide a shred of evidence and legitimate and transparent accounting to show how the nation’s resources were spent. This helps to contextualise the current situation. It is less of a wonder why a budget cut is the only policy debate it can offer as it is the only thing the opposition has experience and expertise in, especially given that they are not in power and CANNOT direct the public’s purse.
Public unrest, property destruction and instigating fear in ordinary Guyanese is a hallmark of the PNC regime (btw APNU = PNCR). During the PNC rule, there was nothing like freedom of speech let alone a debate on public policy. Today, the freedom of speech is so much that even the opposition is using it to bring shame and destruction to their character and use it for public exposition of their own incompetence.
Parliament: the speaker should be the one who should be under a committee and a review of his savvy to comprehend parliamentary procedures and standing orders should be conducted. Despite being advised of the procedures, he allowed a motion that threatened the institutional authority and power of the highest decision making institution in our democracy. This is not what a small and budding democracy like ours need, and definitely not what our economy needs.
At the end of all of this, it should be clear to all Guyanese that when the PNC change to PNCR and further to APNU, the one thing that survived is their IDEOLOGY.
 This is the very governing paradigm that the party had from birth. It is sad that the nations’ average citizens are the one who have always been and will continue to be the ones whose backbones the brunt of such madness falls on.